http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Getting children to school en Mon, 01 Jun 2026 05:15:58 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=3#post-104877 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:51:52 +0000 chdot 104877@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Sort of </p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/way_to_school" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/groups/way_to_school</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=3#post-104875 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:48:01 +0000 chdot 104875@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Peace at last. </p> <p>How about some more pix of people going to school. </p> <p>Maybe there needs to be a Flickr Group (maybe is).</p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/commuting_without_a_car" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/groups/commuting_without_a_car</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/edinburgh_cycles_to_work" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/groups/edinburgh_cycles_to_work</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=3#post-104870 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:40:13 +0000 minus six 104870@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>ok, that's a fair summary.</p> <p>lets get back to exploiting the kids. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=3#post-104849 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:38:41 +0000 Instography 104849@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>But your sense of personal responsibility isn't entirely your own if you also use it to assess other people's experiences. It stops being a personal, privately held, in-your-own-head opinion. You cease to only be taking responsibility for your own actions and their consequences when you start to apply it as a critique to other people. It stops being quite so straightforward.</p> <p>My falling over in the snow is completely trivial but if I can be held in any measure culpable (there are no accidents just actions and consequences, you say) it can only be for being there on a bicycle when it was a bit slippery. </p> <p>Like WC, I'm not interested in "winning" (unless there's a prize no one told me about). I found the statement that there are no accidents intriguing because it is quite a significant position to take and has implications for how we view what happens to cyclists everywhere. The logic seems to me that it's possible, always, to blame them at least for being there. If you didn't cause the incident, you at least didn't do everything you could to prevent it.</p> <p>I think it's possible to reconcile the existence of accidents and your notion personal responsibility by introducing time into the equation. You can have an accident (or in your case a collision) but what matters is what you do next. I sorted out my bike with the studded tyres (and you are probably more assiduous at taking primary). That's taking responsibility but it doesn't require you to be able to see into all possible futures. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104834 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:56:47 +0000 minus six 104834@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It all seems very straightforward to me.</p> <p>I have private dialogue on the incident where i can ascribe personal responsibility for my road positioning, which will help me to avoid such incidents in future.</p> <p>The idea that i would do the same in a courtroom, like an innocent babe in the wood, seems preposterous.</p> <p>The law is an ass. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104822 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:30:43 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 104822@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>This is getting nowhere. I'll politely withdraw. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104819 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:27:16 +0000 minus six 104819@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>You can say for definite that the third party would think this?</em></p> <p>my road positioning is lawful and expected. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104816 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:21:36 +0000 Darkerside 104816@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I have no idea what happened to this thread, but on the previous page someone mentioned something about colour perception. xkcd did a survey where users were shown a colour (on screen) and asked to name it. 5 million colours later, you get some weird information on colour perception.</p> <p><a href="http://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/">Worth a read.</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104807 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:57:24 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 104807@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>my sense of responsibility here is entirely my own</em>"</p> <p>Trust me, nothing about 'narrowing' anything down to 'close in for a win'. It's just this statement is wrong in terms of any legal proceedings. It could quite easily get raised in court by an opposing side as a contributory factor. You yourself have said you 'neglected' to cycle in a way to control matters, and yet you're saying when you are asked directly if you 'neglected' in that way you would happily lie in court despite knowing you did.</p> <p>"<em>from a third party perspective, my road positioning was not negligent</em>"</p> <p>You can say for definite that the third party would think this? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104805 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:39:57 +0000 minus six 104805@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>If the other side were to raise this as a possibility and asked you if you thought you were partly at fault due to your road positiniong not controlling the situation</em></p> <p>well we're narrowing it down, here.. and you're closing in for the win.</p> <p>but your legal argument holds no water for me. i'd have no moral problem in denying my road positioning was at fault.</p> <p>from a third party perspective, my road positioning was not negligent. it was lawful and expected.</p> <p>my sense of responsibility here is entirely my own. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104803 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:34:04 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 104803@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945</p> <p>"<em>Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage</em>"</p> <p>Doesn't matter if it's just a 'private sense of personal responsibility' (and indeed if you were asked in court if you thought you were personally responable you would be perjuring yourself if you then said no). If the other side were to raise this as a possibility and asked you if you thought you were partly at fault due to your road positiniong not controlling the situation... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104801 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:28:41 +0000 minus six 104801@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>contributory negligence on your part?</em></p> <p>absolutely not.</p> <p>i had every right to be on the road in the position i was in.</p> <p>contributory negligence is strictly a legal term. it doesn't apply to my private sense of personal responsibility. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104800 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:25:22 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 104800@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Something we've already agreed to disagree on.</p> <p>But as you say, the can was then kicked further down the road, and you then, you have to admit, maintained that kicking, so...</p> <p>"<em>The driver was fully at fault, but privately in my own mind i had to accept <strong>personal responsibility</strong> for allowing the situation to arise, by <strong>neglecting</strong> to take primary when approaching the junction. </p> <p>Its a common enough scenario but there can be <strong>no grounds for contributory negligence</strong> in law.</em>"</p> <p>Given your love of semantics as professed on the first pages... You say you were partly 'responsible' and contributed to the situation having acted 'negligently', and yet claim there is no legal 'contributory negligence'. I'm not sure I follow. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104798 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:18:20 +0000 minus six 104798@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>You decided that your aim was to make progress through the snow on your bicycle, and you are responsible for the success or otherwise of that.</p> <p>You are also responsible for determining what success or negligence means in relation to this.</p> <p>There's no one else involved here. No outside agency. Its personal responsibility, and its up to you to decide if your bruised hip was due to your own negligence.</p> <p>This argument started over the definition of the term "accident". My contention is that people routinely use the term to avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions, because the action was "unintentional". </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104796 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:11:08 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 104796@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Indeed. Which brings us back to not wearing hi-viz or a helmet making someone partially responsible for not being seen or having a head injury (both of which, as has been mentioned, <em>do</em> have previous for use as contributory negligence attempts).</p> <p>"<em>The driver was fully at fault, but privately in my own mind i had to accept personal responsibility for allowing the situation to arise, by <strong>neglecting</strong> to take primary when approaching the junction.</em>"</p> <p>So contributory negligence on your part? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104795 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:05:39 +0000 Instography 104795@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Or responsible just for being there, in the snow, on a bicycle. Which, if you'll pardon the pun, strikes me as a dangerous slippery slope to 'just asking for it'. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104790 Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:38:30 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 104790@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>If you're 'responsible' then it must be through an act or omission, and if it wasn't a 'deliberate' act or omission to fall then there must have been, at some level, negligence by the person so acting or omitting? Responsibility with no action seems an odd concept. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104774 Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:41:38 +0000 Instography 104774@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Responsible in what sense? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104741 Sun, 17 Mar 2013 10:18:04 +0000 minus six 104741@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>you seem to view this as either accident or negligent.</p> <p>i say neither. you're just responsible for the action. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104736 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 23:28:29 +0000 Instography 104736@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So what was negligent about falling over in the snow? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104714 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:56:15 +0000 minus six 104714@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>isn't the HGV argument commonly applied at a stationary junction where the cyclist has filtered up unseen from behind</p> <p>whereas a left hook collision from an "overtaking" motorist -- open and shut case, regardless of primary, shurely? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104711 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:41:11 +0000 Dave 104711@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The important part of contributory negligence is the second word, not the first. If you happen to go to the bank and are shot by a bank robber you certainly *contributed* to your injury by going to the bank whereafter a robbery occurred (doubly so, because you could have been wearing a precautionary bulletproof vest).</p> <p>However, with respect to the activity of bank robbers, it's not *negligent* to go to the bank without body armour (or indeed, just go to the bank at all).</p> <p>The grey margin is where things get interesting. It's common knowledge that taking primary position prevents many instances of dangerous overtaking, so it's not impossible to make the argument that failure to do so is contributory negligence. On the other hand, taking primary position annoys drivers and you might be hit in a road-rage attack (in which case, adopting primary position could be argued as contributory negligence).</p> <p>Nowhere is this better illustrated than the truck drivers who turn left over the top of people who are clearly visible in basic safety mirrors. Which way around do you prefer the situation to be stated? The truck driver should have looked in the mirror VS the cyclist should not have been in such a position that they relied on the driver using those mirrors.</p> <p>etc etc. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104706 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:56:19 +0000 minus six 104706@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>I don't know how to pronounce your username - any suggestions?</em></p> <p>the artist formerly known as bax </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104701 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:18:07 +0000 SRD 104701@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>What min said - all three posts. </p> <p>Pretty sure I had trouble remember what you had said previously cause I don't know how to pronounce your username - any suggestions? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104700 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:11:38 +0000 Min 104700@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Hmm, yes the stiltedness is what does it. I am not necessarily able to remember who said what over the last few days or to want to reread the entire thread before posting in order to put each post into context.</p> <p>As you were! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104699 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:53:55 +0000 minus six 104699@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I was joking, naturally.. which seemed self-evident.</p> <p>I'm 100% in favour of "exploiting" children in this way.</p> <p>It certainly forced Fife Council to take Instography seriously in their replies.</p> <p>Its difficult having stilted discussions on a forum, as if you were engaged in banter down the pub.. the tone of it all gets lost in translation. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104698 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:52:51 +0000 Min 104698@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>In fact it is not even a question of "just" deaths and injuries. Children are also disproportionally affected by not being allowed out to play, to not be allowed to go to school or anywhere on their own because the roads are too dangerous. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104696 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:43:56 +0000 Min 104696@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>How is it "personal gain"? Small children are the ones getting disproportionally wiped out and few people seem to care as it is adults who do not want to give up the convenience of car transport. We are the ones who should be standing up for them, not keeping quiet about it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104692 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:29:51 +0000 minus six 104692@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Blueth</p> <p>i was referring specifically to contributory negligence being inappropriate with regard to my incident with the boy racer.</p> <p>anyway, can't we just get back to discussing insto's exploitation of small children for personal gain?</p> <p>i dunno, back then it just seemed like happier days.. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9700&page=2#post-104691 Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:54:05 +0000 minus six 104691@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Why would it not extend to law? </em></p> <p>We were disagreeing on whether you coming off your bike on snowy ground was an "accident".</p> <p>You kicked the can way down the road by introducing a subsequent courtroom type scenario determining who, if anyone, was responsible for that.</p> <p>I'm saying that you were responsible for that.</p> <p>I'm not saying that you'd be responsible for the motorist who then ran you over, thereafter.</p> <p>Neither would I expect a court of law to do so.</p> <p>But i concede that they probably would. </p>